Replies

No doubt I'm missing something here: Who would wish to continue living in this condition? The reason so many people have living wills is because they want to avoid being condemned to such an existence.

If I were her husband, I would do the same thing. My wife, on the few occasions we have discussed it, has shunned the idea of being kept alive via any artificial means. I suspect most reasonable persons harbor similar sentiments. Who can blame them? A life stripped of all dignity is not worth living.

As I stated, there must be something I'm missing. What's the source of all the commotion?

- Absent a living will, we must assume the afflicted party wishes to remain alive at all costs - regardless of contrary testimony by a spouse?

- There should be no living wills?

Or is it something else? Seriously, I don't get it.

If I were her husband, I would do the same thing. My wife, on the few occasions we have discussed it, has shunned the idea of being kept alive via any artificial means. I suspect most reasonable persons harbor similar sentiments. Who can blame them? A life stripped of all dignity is not worth living.

I think this helps point out the need to get something in writing, notarized and legal so that we can decided these while lucid rather than have it evolve like this has.

A life stripped of all dignity is not worth living.

Has anyone told Michael that?

No doubt I'm missing something here: Who would wish to continue living in this condition? The reason so many people have living wills is because they want to avoid being condemned to such an existence.

People in apparently-similar conditions, including very bad looking brain scans, have on occasion recovered substantially from such conditions given the right treatments; the brain is at times amazingly capable of regrowth. Unfortunately, we'll never know what therapy might have done for Terri because her HINO has prevented her from receiving any.

If therapy had been tried and proven incapable of producing any improvements, then it might be reasonable to begin to ask your question. But until then, no way.

If I were her husband, I would do the same thing. My wife, on the few occasions we have discussed it, has shunned the idea of being kept alive via any artificial means. I suspect most reasonable persons harbor similar sentiments. Who can blame them? A life stripped of all dignity is not worth living.

Again, all that is known is that Terri's HINO has worked to prevent any improvement in her condition. Put a healthy person in solitary confinement for thirteen years, forbid visitors for months at a time, and see how they feel about life then.

If Terri's life is miserable, it is in significant measure because Michael has deliberately worked to make it so. To allow him to then use such misery as an excuse to kill his wife is obscene.

As I stated, there must be something I'm missing. What's the source of all the commotion?

A few things:

Twenty-six-year-olds generally do not collapse of cardiac arrest for no apparent reason. Many here think there's something fishy about her original collapse, especially considering affidavits from relatives indicating she was afraid of her husband and wanted to divorce him.
At a malpractice trial, Terri was awarded $750K for rehabilitation and her husband awarded $300K for loss of consortium. These award were given after Terri's husband testified his intention to stay with Terri and rehabilitate her, and his doctors testified that, while brain-damaged, she could be expected to live a reasonably normal-lifespan.
The only evidence of Terri's wish to die is hearsay by her husband and in-laws.
Terri's survival of infections and an earlier starvation attempt suggest she has a strong will to live.
Terri's husbamd has actively worked to prevent any therapy or treatment that might allow her condition to improve.
Terri's husband has actively worked to prevent her from being taught to accept food and liquid orally, or even from being tested to see if she can do so without training.
Terri's husband is using the fact that Terri needs to be tube-fed as justification for killing her, despite the fact that no efforts have been made to see if her need for the feed tube stems from anything other than his refusal to let her take food or liquid by mouth.
Judge Greer allowed George Felos, her husband's attourney, to dismiss her guardian ad litem and has refused to appoint another. The $750K in her trust fund has not been used for rehabilitation, but $300K of it has been used to pay lawyer George Felos to try to have her killed.
Terri's husband lives with another woman, has fathered two children by her, and calls her his fiancée.
Terri's husband has ordered that Terri (Catholic) not be given communion, on the grounds that it might "agitate" her. [how?]

Need I go on?

- Absent a living will, we must assume the afflicted party wishes to remain alive at all costs - regardless of contrary testimony by a spouse?

How about kept alive at least to the extent that there is someone willing to pay for it, or money specifically earmarked for such purpose (the 750K)? I see no reason why a husband who acts so cruelly toward his wife should deserve one penny of the money which was put in trust for her rehabilitation and which refusese to spend for such purpose.

- There should be no living wills?

If people wish to put their wishes in writing, that's one thing. But to allow someone with a clear conflict of interest to remember a request not to be sustained on tubes only when such a statement suits his interest, and to regard such hearsay as "clear and compelling evidence" of intention is just plain wrong.

Or is it something else? Seriously, I don't get it.

Does the above help?

At least you're honest in asking what you are missing!!!!!

Why can't people use the real words that mean something, instead of vague (artificial means) phrases that mask the real meaning?
Artificial means= food/water via injections or tubes inserted in throat or a porthole in the skin.
Guranteed if the words "food and water" were used in all news reports or any discussions of this issue, threre would be way smaller numbers of pro euthanasia!!!!
Most people envision "tubes and wires" when they picture terminal days.
Another HUGE point, is that the living wills, or someone conveying their wishes to someone else, mean in a terminal condition.
No doctor has stated that Terri Shiavo is terminal, that is judged to DEFINITELY die within 6 months. (To be eligible for Hospice services).
I cannot understand why nobody is talking about this part of the issue. It is a known fact, yet nobody mentions it in any discussion, especially the media, they jsut keep repeating the "vegetable" mantra.

Where your thinking is clouded on this issue, is that separation between being possibly rehabilitative, like Terri, as documented by many doctors except the husband/court hired ones, or in a REAL terminal, dying condition. The decisions changes immensly between each scenario.
Also, I pray this awakens more people as to the definitions of the terms used in the living wills.
I don't say, (nor do many here) that you SHOULD NOT HAVE A LIVING WILL, just that care should be taken to make sure all parties UNDERSTAND what they are asking for.

Two things I have considered in making my living will in regards to the food/water issue, in my state separate checkboxes on each issue is this:
1. With this type of death, will I have to suffer a lot more than my condition may have already made me suffer, i.e. cancer, etc. Does the withdrawal of water/food really cause as long as 2 weeks of pain, thirst, and additoinal suffering?
2. Will it be a large extra, burden upon my family who must wait nearby for the final event? And watch the symptoms of lack of water.
3. Does the research show the effects while the dying process is happening, what to expect?

In the pioneer days, as the grandparents, or an injured family member lay dying in the family home on the prarie, there were no respirators to have the problem of unplugging, life support, to have to consider, but they always took a rag of water and squeezed it on their dry, cracked lips for comfort, which shows there must be quite a bit of drying and chapping.cracking of dry tissues that happen.Any nurses opinions?

Here is another take on the story.

The video clips are a farce. They contain video shots of Terri's known reactive impulses being fraudulently prompted by voice commands. As in framing the voice commands around events that will occur irregardless of what is said.

Who will pay for Terri's continued care? There never was enough money to properly rehabilitate her. The court established the cost for such treatment in Terri's case to be $9.5 million. She received a $1.3 million settlement, reduced by the jury because her own eating disorder caused her collapse and resulting brain damage.

The paltry sum of $1.3 was used wisely by the vilified husband. He sustained life in Terri long enough for the experts to realize that no miracles would be forthcoming.

Michael Schiavo decided to use the remaining money to insure a dignified remaing life and death for Terri. It was obvious that the Schindlers would fight him and that money would have to be spent on attorneys. He was right, it has taken ten years and because he did start with a cash reserve Terri has not had to suffer. He did this rather than allow her to be placed in the Medicaid pig-pens when the money ran out. Terri's parents are destitute and cannot afford to care for her.